Animal feed

ABSTRACT

The present invention includes a method for increasing meat production while reducing fat in ruminant and non-ruminant animals and for increasing egg production in poultry and milk production in ruminant animals. The method includes mixing ingredients that include 190 proof ethanol in a concentration of about 9% by weight of a food supplement with clay and a nitrogen source such as urea to form the food supplement. The food supplement for ruminant animals additionally includes a condensed distiller&#39;s soluble fraction. The mixed ingredients are added to an animal feed such as corn. The animal feed and supplement are fed to an animal at least one per day.

This is a continuation of application of U.S. Ser. No. 08/680,536, filedon Jul. 9, 1996, now abandoned.

BACKGROUND OF INVENTION

The present invention relates to an animal feed supplement.

Animal feeds must be formulated to meet specific needs of digestivesystems of particular animal groups. For instance, ruminants, such ascattle, sheep and goats have different nutritional requirements fromnon-ruminants because ruminants have multiple stomachs and uniquemicrobial cultures in their digestive tracts. Ruminant feed must notupset these microbial cultures but must accommodate the animals'nutritional needs.

Protein requirements of ruminants may be typically met by feeding theanimals urea, along with grain, hay and silage. Urea is broken down inthe ruminants' stomachs by microbes so that nitrogen in the urea can beused to make amino acids. Urea is recycled in ruminants in the followingpath described in Biochemical Adaptation by P. W. Hochachka (1984):liver urea→blood urea→equilibration with extracellular water→salivaryglands→urea in salivary glands→rumen urea. Once in the rumen, urea ishydrolyzed to bicarbonate ion and ammonium ion by the action of urease.

Urea does not typically provide more than 30% of nutrients that can beused by the ruminant to make protein. If a ruminant ingests too muchurea, the animal may die because excess nitrogen is converted to ammoniawhich may be lethal to the animal.

Some non-ruminant animals, such as swine, are omnivores. Swine typicallyeat a diet that includes about 75 to 80 percent carbohydrate and about16 percent protein. Swine typically are not fed urea. Swine have a verylow tolerance for roughage. Corn is regarded as an excellent source ofenergy for swine but requires supplementation because corn is deficientin protein, calcium, and the amino acids, lysine and tryptophan. Swineare more sensitive to dietary deficiencies than ruminants because,unlike ruminants, swine do not have microbial cultures that synthesizerequired nutrients.

Poultry, which have crops and gizzards instead of stomachs, havedifferent digestive systems and nutritional requirements than animalssuch as ruminants and non-ruminants such as swine. Poultry must ingestgritty materials such as oyster shells that mechanically aid each birdin digestion. Poultry, such as chickens, have a protein requirement of16 to 20 percent of food ingested. Like swine, poultry typically do notingest urea to make proteins. Poultry and swine, like ruminants, aresusceptible to ammonia poisoning.

In addition to each animal's unique anatomy, nutritional requirements ofthe animals are dictated by each animal's needs with respect to meatproduction, milk production, egg production as well as reproduction ofthe animal and the animal's response to stress. Typically, the animal'sfeed must be specially formulated to provide the necessary carbohydrate,fat and protein in a form that can be metabolized by the animal.

The Anderson et al., U.S. Pat. No. 2,808,332, issuing Oct. 1, 1957,describes a use of ethanol in feed supplements for ruminant animals. Thepatent describes incorporation of ethanol into formulations that alsoinclude nitrogen sources such as urea, ammonia, ammonium propionate,ammonium phosphate, as well as phosphoric acid, molasses, vitamins andtrace minerals. The patentees noted that microorganisms inhabiting thedigestive tract of ruminants cannot sufficiently synthesize some of theamino acids needed from urea and carbohydrate when living aerobically,lacking unoxidized hydrogen. The ethanol is added to the feed supplementin order to supply unoxidized hydrogen to the ruminant.

The Anderson et al., U.S. Pat. No. 3,484,243 ('243), issuing Dec. 16,1969, describes an animal feed for use by ruminants. The animal feedincludes sugars, water-miscible alcohols such as ethyl alcohol andn-propyl alcohol, urea, and phosphoric acid.

The '243 patent describes a use of n-propyl alcohol because concentratedwater-miscible alcohols, such as ethanol, have an undesirable propertyof denaturing protein on the animal's tongues. The patentees addedn-propyl alcohol to their feed supplement in order to eliminate thisadverse effect. The patentees noted that it was necessary to employminimal concentrations of n-propyl alcohol in feeding animals initiallybecause the cattle did not eat the supplement in adequate amounts iflarge quantities were added.

The Bentley et al, U.S. Pat. No. 4,863,959, issuing Sep. 5, 1989,describes a use of an anthranilonitrile derivative for promoting growth,improving feed efficiency, and for increasing a lean meat to fat ratioof warn blooded animals. The patent observed that anthranilonitrilederivatives tended to reduce fat and promoted growth in warm bloodedanimals. The patentees also noted that these materials are useful asantiasthmatic and antiobesity agents for humans. The anthranilonitrilederivatives are described as mixed directly with animal feeds orprepared in the form of animal feed premix or concentrate that could beblended with an animal feed or a top dressing.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention includes a method for increasing meat production,while reducing fat in ruminant and non-ruminant animals and forincreasing egg production in poultry. The method includes mixingingredients that include 190 proof ethanol in a concentration of about9% by weight of a food supplement with clay and a nitrogen source suchas urea to form the food supplement. The feed supplement for ruminantanimals additionally includes a condensed distiller's soluble fraction.The mixed ingredients are added to an animal feed such as corn. Theanimal feed and supplement are fed to an animal at least once per day.

The present invention also includes an animal feed supplement for use byruminant and non-ruminant animals that includes 190 proof ethanol in aconcentration of about 9% by weight of the supplement, a nitrogen sourcesuch as urea and clay.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

The present invention includes a method for rapidly increasing weight ofa non-ruminant animal while reducing fat in the animal and forincreasing egg production in poultry that includes supplementing ananimal feed with a supplemental formulation that includes 190 proofethyl alcohol, ethyl acetate, urea, clay, molasses and water. Thepresent invention also includes a method for increasing milk productionin dairy cows that includes a further addition of a condenseddistiller's soluble fraction to the feed supplement of the presentinvention. The feed supplement also reduces feed dust and odor inlivestock buildings and pens.

The present invention also includes an animal feed supplement for use bynon-ruminant and ruminant animals comprising ingredients of 190 proofethyl alcohol, ethyl acetate, urea, phosphorus, clay and water. In oneembodiment, the feed supplement also includes soybean oil in aconcentration of 10% by weight and whey in a concentration of about 12%by weight of the supplement. One other embodiment of the feed supplementof the present invention that includes the condensed distiller'ssolubles fraction.

It has surprisingly been found that an animal supplement that includes190 proof ethyl alcohol in a concentration of 9% by weight of thesupplement and urea can be fed to non-ruminant animals such as poultryand hogs, even in the presence of whey. This result is surprisingbecause individuals skilled in the art have previously believed thatswine and poultry would die if fed a food supplement that included theconcentrations of ethyl alcohol and urea described in the presentinvention.

It has also surprisingly been found that the feed supplement, fed withthe condensed distiller's fraction, significantly boosts milk productionin dairy cows. It is believed that feeding the feed supplement of thepresent invention that includes both an alcohol concentration and thecondensed distiller's soluble concentration increases energy per poundof food consumed. Meeting a cows energy requirement without requiringthe cow to consume excessive amounts of grain results in a significantweight gain per pound of food consumed as compared to cows not receivingthe food supplement and cows receiving a food supplement with ethanolonly. With the desirable weight gain, cows are better conditioned interms of muscle development and have stronger estrous cycles and betterconception rates. It has also been found that dairy cows receiving thefood supplement of the present invention display less ketosis and lesslaminitis than cows not receiving the food supplement.

As discussed in the Background, non-ruminant animals are not believed tobe capable of utilizing significant amounts of urea without formingtoxic amounts of ammonia. It has surprisingly been found, however, thatthe food supplement of the present invention not only does not killnon-ruminant livestock but actually enhances meat and egg productionwhile reducing fat in these animals.

One embodiment of the food supplement of the present invention foringestion by livestock having a single stomach such as swine and poultryis shown in Table 1. It is not understood how or why the formulation ofthe present invention acts to increase meat production while reducingfat in single-stomached livestock and poultry. It is believed that thefeed supplement provides more energy per pound of food consumed withless fiber, thereby increasing efficiency of food metabolism in animalsreceiving the supplement. It is not understood how the formulation actsto increase egg production. It is believed that an interaction of claywith ethyl alcohol and urea neutralize any toxic effects from thealcohol and urea.

                  TABLE 1                                                         ______________________________________                                                          PERCENT CONCENTRATION                                         INGREDIENT RANGE                                                            ______________________________________                                        95.2% Ethyl Alcohol denatured                                                                   9% by weight                                                  with 4.8% ethyl acetate                                                       10% Urea-34% Phosphorous 3.75                                                 Urea 10.3                                                                     Clay (Bentonite) 0.5-2.5                                                      Molasses 39.2-49.2                                                            Whey 12.3                                                                     Water 12.95-14.95                                                             Soybean Oil 0-10                                                            ______________________________________                                    

The feed supplement of the present invention is preferably in a liquidform. The feed supplement may be mixed with the animals' conventional ornormal ground feed. The feed supplement of the present invention mayalso be provided to an animal in a lick tank or blended in an animal'stotal mixed ration. The protein, carbohydrate and fiber in a particularanimal's diet may be adjusted as needed. One pound of the feedsupplement of the present invention, fed with 31/2 pounds of roughagehas an energy equivalent of 4 pounds of corn and the protein of onepound of soymeal.

It has been found that the formulation of the present invention isstable within a temperature range of 10° F. to 120° F.

The following examples are presented to illustrate the performance ofthe feed supplement of the present invention and are not intended tolimit application of the feed supplement.

EXAMPLE ONE

In one swine test, the results of which are shown in Table 2, it wasfound that the use of the feed supplement of the present inventionincreased average daily weight gain of pigs as compared to a controlgroup of pigs and produced more pounds of salable meat per pound of foodconsumed by each animal. The test included 22 control pigs, 23 proteincontrol pigs fed the same quantity of protein as pigs receiving theformulation of the present invention and 22 pigs receiving the feedsupplement of the present invention. The control pigs were fed aproducers' normal ration, having a protein content of 16% by weight offeed. The protein control pigs were also fed a producer's normal rationwith 15% protein, the same protein concentration as the pigs receivingthe formulation of the present invention. Each group of pigs receivedidentical amounts of minerals and vitamins.

                  TABLE 2                                                         ______________________________________                                                              PROTEIN  SPECIAL                                          CONTROL CHECK LIQUID                                                        ______________________________________                                        Percent Protein                                                                              16%        15%      15%                                          Number of Pigs 22 23 22                                                       Average Purchase Weight 42.3 41.6 41.4                                        Average Finish Weight 238.3 220 237                                           Gain in weight 196 178.4 195.6                                                Pounds of Feed Used/Hog 635 605 590                                           Pounds of Feed/Pounds of 3.240 3.391 3.016                                    Gain                                                                        ______________________________________                                    

The average initial weight of pigs in the control group was 42.3 pounds.The average weight of the protein control group was 41.6 pounds, and theaverage weight of the pigs receiving the supplement of the presentinvention was 41.4 pounds. The average finished weight of the controlpigs was 238.3 pounds. The average weight of the protein control pigswas 220 pounds and the average weight of pigs receiving the supplementof the present invention was 237 pounds. The control pigs and the pigsreceiving the formulation of the present invention had almost the samegain in weight. However, the control pigs were fed 635 pounds of foodper hog while pigs receiving the formulation of the present inventionwere fed only 590 pounds of food per hog. Thus, significantly less foodwas required to obtain pigs having the same weight as or more weightthan the control group of pigs. Pigs on the protein control diet showeda gain in weight of only 178.4 pounds but were fed at a rate of 605pounds per hog. The results show that the feed supplement of the presentinvention, rather than mere addition of protein to a conventionalanimals' diet, improved efficiency of meat production as compared tofood intake for the animals studied.

EXAMPLE TWO

A second test of swine compared the metabolic performance of pigs fed acontrol diet to pigs fed the food supplement of the present invention.The control diet was a producer's normal ration. The diet that includedthe feed supplement of the present invention had 100 lbs. less soybeanmeal (44% by weight) per ton of feed, and 50 lbs. more corn per ton offeed than the producer's normal ration. The diet included 50 lbs. of theliquid feed supplement of the present invention per ton of feed. Thenumber of pigs in each group was 5. The average starting weight in eachgroup was 68 pounds. The market weight gain for the control group was232 pounds as can be seen in Table 3. The market weight gain for thegroup fed the diet of the present invention was 233 pounds. The totalweight gain for the control group was 820 pounds and for the group fedthe diet of the present invention was 825 pounds. To achieve this weightgain, the control group was fed 3,225 pounds of feed while the group fedthe diet of the present invention was fed only 2,900 pounds of feed.This amounts to 3.93 pounds of feed per pound of gain for the controlgroup and 3.51 pounds of feed per pound of gain for the group fed theformulation of the present invention. Thus, the group ingesting the feedsupplement of the present invention utilized 10.08% less feed to achievethe same final market weight.

                  TABLE 3                                                         ______________________________________                                                        Control                                                                             Special Liquid                                          ______________________________________                                        Number of Pigs    5       5                                                     Average Starting Weight 68 68                                                 Average Market Weight 232 233                                                 Total Gain 820 825                                                            Total Pounds of Feed Used 3,225 2,900                                         Lbs. of Feed/Lbs. of Gain 3.93 3.51                                         ______________________________________                                    

EXAMPLE THREE

One other test performed determined the quality and quantity of usablemeat actually produced by pigs fed the food supplement of the presentinvention and control pigs. Three groups were tested that included acontrol group, a group fed a first formulation of the present invention,and a group fed a second formulation of the present invention. Thecontrol diet included a producer's normal ration with 17% protein byweight. The first formulation differed from the control diet by having aprotein content of 16.2% protein. Also, the first formulation contained50 lbs. less of a 48% soybean meal component per ton of feed than thecontrol diet and 25 lbs. more corn per ton of feed than the controldiet. The first formulation additionally contained 25 lbs. of the liquidfeed supplement of the present invention per ton of feed.

The second formulation included a protein content of 16.6% by weight.Also, the second formulation contained 50 lbs. less of a 48% soybeanmeal component per ton of feed than the control diet. The secondformulation included 50 lbs. of the liquid feed supplement of thepresent invention per ton of feed.

The number of pigs in each group was 4 pigs. The average initial weightper pig was 52 pounds. The age of each pig was about eight weeks. Thepigs had been wormed and sprayed prior to the beginning of the study.The pigs had not received any vaccinations. The pigs were assigned to apen of 18 square feet.

All groups were fed lysine and probiotics. Soymeal was replaced with thesupplement of the present invention as described in Example Two and cornwas fed to the pigs receiving the food supplement of the presentinvention as well as the control pigs.

The performance of the pigs is shown in Table 4. The live weight of thecontrol pigs was 245 pounds. The live weight of pigs fed a firstformulation of the present invention was 240 pounds, and pigs fed asecond formulation of the present invention was 235 pounds. The firstformulation included a concentration of the liquid feed supplement thatwas about one-half of the quantity of the second formulation.

When the pigs were butchered, it was found that the dressed weight ofthe control pigs was 165.5 pounds, the dressed weight of pigs fed thefirst formulation of the present invention was 166 pounds, and theweight was 165.5 pounds for pigs fed the second formulation of thepresent invention. A quantity of 78.47% of the control group weight wassalable meat. A quantity of 80.02% of the weight of pigs fed the firstformulation of the present invention was salable. A quantity of 82.22%of the weight of pigs fed the second formulation of the presentinvention was salable.

                  TABLE 4                                                         ______________________________________                                                            SPECIAL    SPECIAL                                          CONTROL LIQUID #1 LIQUID #2                                                 ______________________________________                                        Live Weight    245 lbs. 240 lbs.     235 lbs.                                   Dressed Weight 165.5 lbs. 166 lbs. 165.5 lbs.                                 Yield  67.5%  69.0%  70.4%                                                    Salable Meat 78.47% 80.02% 82.22%                                             Production                                                                    Lard 14.33% 12.39% 11.58%                                                     Shrinkage  7.20%  7.59%  6.20%                                              ______________________________________                                    

The control group contained lard in a percentage of 14.33% by dressedweight. The percent lard in the pigs receiving the formulation of thepresent invention was significantly lower at 12.39% for the firstformulation, and 11.58% for the second formulation. As can be seen inTable 4, the formulations of the present invention improved efficiencyof metabolism of pigs by reducing lard formation and increasing salablemeat formation.

A BUN (blood urea nitrogen) test was also performed on the blood of pigstested while the pigs were still alive. A normal range for a BUN testfor swine is 16-20 mg/dl. The control group of pigs had blood levelsthat fell within this range, having a range of 16-18 mg/dl. The group ofpigs fed the first formulation of the present invention had a BUN 10-11mg/dl while the second group had a BUN of 14-15 mg/dl. These testresults were significantly lower than levels in the control swine group.

Cholesterol levels were also tested in blood of animals in the threegroups. A normal range of cholesterol for swine is in the range of80-120 mg/dl. The control group in the test conducted had bloodcholesterol values within a range of 100-106 mg/dl, within the normalrange. The group receiving the first formulation of the presentinvention had a significantly lower cholesterol levels of 93-99 mg/dl.

The group receiving the second formulation of the present invention hada cholesterol levels within a range of 90-91 mg/dl. Thus, the foodsupplement of the present invention reduced cholesterol levels in theblood of the swine tested. This corresponds with the significantly lowerlard concentrations found in the hogs receiving the food supplement ofthe present invention.

EXAMPLE FIVE

A group of control laying hens and a group of hens receiving the foodsupplement of the present invention were studied for a period of aboutthree months. The control hens were fed a producer's normal ration. Thehens receiving the feed supplement were fed a diet that differed fromthe producer's normal ration in that the diet had 100 lbs. less soybeanmeal per ton of feed, 25 lbs. less fat per ton, 75 lbs. more corn perton and 50 lbs. of the liquid feed supplement of the present inventionper ton. The hens were 21 weeks old at the beginning of the test. About22.0 pounds of feed per 100 hens were fed to the hens receiving the foodsupplement of the present invention and about 21.8 pounds of feed per100 hens were fed to the control hens. This is shown in Table 5, overthe time period of the test. The egg laying performance of each of thegroups is shown in Table 5. The laying percent refers to the percent ofhens laying eggs during the course of the week. As can be seen, for thefirst two weeks, a greater percentage of control hens laid eggs eachweek than the hens receiving the feed of the present invention.

However, during and after the third week, a greater percentage of hensreceiving the food supplement of present invention laid eggs thancontrol eggs. The average percent of hens laying eggs and receiving thefood supplement of the present invention over the course of the testperiod was 80.47% while the average number of control hens laying eggswas only 79.34%. Thus, the food supplement of the present inventionsurprisingly increased the laying percent of hens.

                  TABLE 5                                                         ______________________________________                                        Laying Hen Test                                                                 1-20-95 to 3-24-95                                                                           Special Liquid                                                                            Controls                                           Laying Percen- Laying Percen-                                                 tage/Week tage/week                                                         ______________________________________                                        Week 21          27.68       28.43                                              22 58.75 59.24                                                                23 81.10 79.24                                                                24 87.97 86.39                                                                25 91.73 89.73                                                                26 90.08 88.89                                                                27 91.23 90.14                                                                28 93.00 91.45                                                                29 92.25 90.20                                                                30 90.95 89.48                                                                Average  80.47%  79.34%                                                       Lbs. Feed/100 Hens 21.96 21.80                                                 Pounds Pounds                                                                Change in Ration/Ton                                                          -100 lbs. Soymeal/Ton of Feed  10.00                                          -25 lbs. Fat/Ton of Feed   4.50                                               +50 lbs. Spec. Liq./Ton of Feed 7.50                                          +75 lbs. Corn/Ton of Feed 3.75                                              ______________________________________                                    

It was found that the optimum formulation for egg production included aweight percent of 190 proof ethanol of 9%. It was observed that a higherethanol content was adverse to egg production, because the higherethanol contact diminished the appetites of the birds.

Eggs were tested for shell hardness, taste and color. Testing showedthat the eggs laid by hens receiving the food supplement of the presentinvention were comparable to eggs produced by the control hens.

EXAMPLE SIX

In a hen laying test, two groups of hens were tested for 40 weeks. Onegroup of hens received the feed supplement of the present invention andthe second group was a control group. The diets were the same asdescribed for Example Five. The results are shown in Table 6. Theresults show the percent of hens laying eggs each week. For weeks 1-14,the special hens, hens receiving the feed supplement of the presentinvention, consumed 22.7 pounds of feed per 100 hens. The control hensate 23.36 pounds of feed per 100 hens. An average of 66.16% of the hensreceiving the food of the present invention laid eggs while the controlhens had a laying average of 66.07%.

                  TABLE 6                                                         ______________________________________                                        Laying Hen Test                                                                 March 21, 1994 to December 19, 1994                                           Hens were just coming out of molt                                                          Special Liquid                                                                            Controls                                             Week Laying %/Week Laying %/Week                                            ______________________________________                                        1          17.33       15.55                                                    2 34.20 36.76                                                                 3 45.55 44.02                                                                 4 52.47 50.23                                                                 5 57.80 57.34                                                                 6 71.31 69.31                                                                 7 76.07 71.05                                                                 8 77.73 81.82                                                                 9 80.04 82.81                                                                 10 82.02 82.93                                                                11 82.81 83.10                                                                12 83.17 83.48                                                                13 83.00 83.45                                                                14 82.70 82.69                                                                15 62.31 81.40                                                                16 71.09 81.15                                                                17 76.87 82.01                                                                18 80.25 81.84                                                                19 79.78 80.02                                                                20 78.47 78.77                                                                21 78.68 79.34                                                                22 78.28 79.20                                                                23 78.34 79.22                                                                24 77.76 79.77                                                                25 77.24 79.73                                                                26 74.51 73.71                                                                27 74.80 76.24                                                                28 73.01 74.53                                                                29 73.52 74.59                                                                30 72.83 74.25                                                                31 72.50 70.57                                                                32 72.43 70.03                                                                33 71.07 71.02                                                                34 71.18 68.55                                                                35 70.15 69.17                                                                36 70.19 68.30                                                                37 69.95 68.34                                                                38 70.19 67.73                                                                39 70.42 67.42                                                                40 69.40 48.53                                                              ______________________________________                                    

As can be seen, in weeks 15-26, the laying average of the hens consumingthe food supplement of the present invention was actually a little worsethan the laying average of the control hens. This was because these hensreceived a higher alcohol content in their feed ration than the 9% byweight of the feed supplement. It was observed that this higher alcoholcontent negatively influenced the laying behavior of the hens.

For weeks 27-40, the original food supplement of the present inventionwith 9% alcohol by weight was utilized. At week 26, water problems wereencountered in the pens containing the hens receiving the foodsupplement of the present invention. These hens had no water for 24hours. Despite this setback, the hens receiving the food supplement ofthe present invention had a percent laying over this interval of 71.53%compared to 69.33% for the control group. These hens consumed 23.04pounds as compared to 25.53 pounds for the control group.

At week 41, the production of eggs by the control group was so low thatthe producer butchered the hens. The hens receiving the liquidsupplement of the present invention did not show a similar drop inproduction as is evidenced by week 40 production results.

Eggs were tested for shell hardness, taste and color. The testing showedthat the eggs from hens receiving the formulation of the presentinvention were comparable to control eggs.

A summary of egg laying performance for pullets and hens is shown inTable 7. As can be seen, a greater percentage of pullets consistentlylaid eggs that were fed the feed supplement of the present invention ascompared to pullets receiving the control feed. The pullets receivingthe feed of the present invention also had an increased egg productiondespite a lower ratio of pounds of feed per dozen eggs. These resultswere also observed for laying hens consuming the feed supplement of thepresent invention and for laying hens consuming a control diet. Hensdesignated "B" and "D" in Table 7 were regular laying hens. Hensdesignated "C" were older laying hens.

Twelve pullets and twelve control birds were used to generate the datashown in Table 7. Overall, 78% of the control birds laid eggs while 82%of the pullets laid eggs. If extrapolated to 80,000 birds, this amountedto total eggs of 62,400 for the control group and 65,600 for thepullets.

The results were even more dramatic for laying hens. Results as shown inTable 8 were averaged for 80,000 birds. About 71% of the control henslaid eggs while about 76.4% of the hens receiving the feed supplement ofthe present invention laid eggs. Extrapolating to 80,000 birds, thecontrol hens laid 56,800 eggs while the hens receiving the feedsupplement of the present invention laid 61,120 eggs.

                  TABLE 7                                                         ______________________________________                                        Laying Test                                                                            Lbs. Feed Per          Average Weight                                  Pullets Dozen Eggs Percent Laid Per Egg (Ounces)                            ______________________________________                                          50-100 A-1 3.636 82.00 2.11                                                   Control A-2 3.587 79.00 2.19                                                  50-50 A-3 3.349 86.00 2.14                                                    50-150 B-4 3.788 78.00 2.20                                                   Control B-5 3.731 77.00 2.12                                                  Totals:                                                                       Test 3.591 82.00 2.15                                                         Control 3.659 78.00 2.16                                                      Hens                                                                          50-150 B-6 3.437 80.00 2.27                                                   50-150 C-7 4.375 67.00 2.32                                                   50-100 C-8 4.011 72.00 2.31                                                   Control C-9 4.619 68.00 2.42                                                  50-100 D-10 3.801 80.00 2.27                                                  Control D-11 3.821 74.00 2.43                                                 50-50 D-12 3.677 83.00 2.30                                                   Totals:                                                                       Test 3.860 76.40 2.29                                                         Control 4.220 71.00 2.43                                                    ______________________________________                                                                            # Eggs                                       Percent  per Day                                                             # Birds Laid Total Eggs in Dozens                                           ______________________________________                                        Pullets                                                                         Test   80,000 82.00 65,600 5,466.67                                           Control   80,000 78.00 62,400 5,200.00                                          Daily  Annually                                                             Gain in lbs. of Eggs  3,200  1,168,000                                        Gain in Dozens    267    97,455                                               Hens                                                                          Test 80,000.00 76.40 61120 5093.33                                            Control 80,000   71.00 56800 4733.33                                            Daily  Annually                                                             Gain in lbs. of Eggs  4,320  1,576,800                                        Gain in Dozens    360    131,400                                            ______________________________________                                    

Broilers were also tested for weight gain considered with respect toamount of feed consumed by the broilers. Results of a series of testsare shown in Table 8. The control broilers were fed a diet of aproducer's normal ration. The test diet differed from the producer'snormal ration by having 100 lbs. less of a 44% soybean meal componentper ton of feed, 50 lbs. more corn and 50 lbs. of the liquid feedsupplement of the present invention per ton of feed. As is shown inTable 8, the protein percentage in the feed rations ranged from 16.7% inthe feed supplement of test 2 to 19% in the control feed of test 1.

The hens receiving the feed supplement of the present inventionconsistently produced more meat than the control hens. This increasedquantity of meat occurred even though the hens receiving the feedsupplement of the present invention utilized fewer pounds of feed perpound of weight gain. Table 8 illustrates that the meat production inbroilers, like the meat production in swine, is enhanced significantlyin animals receiving the feed supplement of the present invention ascompared to control animals. Further, the use of the animal supplementreduced ammonia present in the broiler house as well as the swine penand enhanced flavor and taste of broiler meat as well as pork. Thebroilers and swine had a reduced fat content as compared to broilers andswine not fed the animal supplement of the present invention.

The tests of broilers showed that use of the animal supplement increasedthe amount of weight gained per pounds of feed consumed. Similarly toswine, the consumption of the animal supplement by broilers alsoproduced more pounds of salable meat per broiler. Further, the use ofthe animal supplement reduced ammonia present in the broiler house andenhanced flavor and taste of broiler meat. The broilers had a reducedfat content as compared to broilers not fed the animal supplement of thepresent invention.

A test of the feed supplement of the present invention on a dairy cowherd showed an increase in milk production. The test herd produced anincreased quantity of milk of seven pounds of milk per day per cow injust the first week of the test. In a second test, milk productionincreased by two pounds per cow over a three day period. Further, thecows consuming the feed supplement of the present invention alsoconsumed less grain and more roughage than the control cows.

It is also contemplated that one other feed supplement embodiment may beused to feed ruminant animals. In this embodiment, the ruminant feedsupplement includes 190 proof ethanol in a concentration of 9% by weightof the supplement. The 190 proof ethanol is made from an ethyl alcoholingredient that is 95.2% by weight and that is denatured with 4.8% ethylacetate. The feed supplement also includes a mixture ofurea-phosphorus-oxygen in a ratio of 10-34-0 in a concentration 3.75% ofthe supplement. The formulation additionally includes 100% urea in aconcentration of 10.3% and bentonite clay in a concentration of 0.5%.The formulation further includes condensed distiller's solubles in aconcentration of 70.45% and 6% water. A breakdown of ingredients in thecondensed distiller's solubles are shown in Table 9 and are obtainedfrom a process converting biomass to ethanol.

                                      TABLE 8                                     __________________________________________________________________________    Broiler Test                                                                                          Test #1    Test #2    Test #3    Test #4                Test #1 Supplement Test #2 Supplement Test #3 Supplement Test #4                                                                     Supplement                                                                     Control 50-100                                                               Control 50-100                                                                Control 50-100                                                                Control 50-100       __________________________________________________________________________    Days of Production 46   46    59   59    42   42    46   46                     Protein Percentage in Feed Ration 19.00 17.70 18.00 16.70 18.00 17.60                                                                18.30 17.00                                                                    Number of Birds                                                              110 110 40 40 40                                                              40 50 50                                                                       Average                                                                      Weight...Live                                                                 (In Pounds) 4.00                                                              4.15 6.08 6.19                                                                4.5 4.77 4.77                                                                 4.79                   Average Weight...Dressed (In Pounds) 2.87 2.87 4.23 4.45 2.98 3.24 3.36                                                              3.39                   Pounds feed used per pound of gain 2.41 2.12 3.31 3.04 3.00 2.68 2.91                                                                2.55                   Dressed Weight to Live Weight Percentage 69.83 69.16 69.57 71.89 66.22                                                               67.92 70.44                                                                   70.77                  Extrapolation for 40,000 Birds                                                Total Pounds of Meat Produced 114800 114800 169200 178000 119200 129600                                                              134400 135600                                                                  Additional                                                                   Pounds of Meat                                                                Produced  0                                                                   8800  10400          __________________________________________________________________________                                                             1200             

                  TABLE 9                                                         ______________________________________                                        Condensed Distiller's Solubles                                                ______________________________________                                        Crude Protein          24.0%                                                    Available Protein 21.0%                                                       Acid Detergent Fiber 12.0%                                                    Neutral Detergent Fiber 13.0%                                                 Total Fatty Acids 19.0%                                                       Phosphorus  1.3%                                                              Potassium  1.6%                                                               Calcium  0.3%                                                                 Sulfur  0.4%                                                                  Magnesium  6.0%                                                               Iron  400 ppm                                                                 Copper   5 ppm                                                                Manganese  35 ppm                                                             Zinc  100 ppm                                                                 Sodium 6000 ppm                                                             ______________________________________                                    

A test of the condensed distiller solubles embodiment of the feedsupplement of the present invention was performed on a dairy cow herd.The test showed an increased in milk production of 7 lbs. of milk perday per cow consuming the feed supplement as compared to a control groupof cows. The control group of cows consumed a normal producer's ration.

In a second test, one group of cows was fed the first embodiment of theliquid feed supplement, without the condensed distiller's solubles, withmolasses. A second group of cows was fed the condensed distiller'ssolubles embodiment of the present invention. In this test, milkproduction increased by 2 lbs. per cow per day over a three-day periodfor the cows receiving the feed supplement with the condensed distillersolubles as compared to cows receiving the feed supplement free of thecondensed distiller solubles.

Feeding the supplement of the present invention, containing both ethanoland condensed distiller's solubles to cows increased both energy andfiber in a bovine diet. Meeting the energy requirements of the animalswithout using excessive amounts of grain, thereby increasing the amountof fiber required, resulted in some positive results. It is believedthat this type of diet enables the bovine to maximally utilize energywithout unnecessary losses due to low fiber.

Although the present invention has been described with reference topreferred embodiments, workers skilled in the art will recognize thatchanges may be made in form and detail without departing from the spiritand scope of the invention.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for feeding a food supplement to anon-ruminant non-human animal wherein the non-ruminant non-human animaldisplays an increase in protein weight without an increase in fat,comprising:preparing a food supplement mixture comprising 190 proofethyl alcohol in a concentration of about 9% by weight, urea in aconcentration range of 10.3% by weight and clay in a concentration of0.5-2.5% by weight; and feeding the food supplement mixture to thenon-ruminant non-human animal in a concentration of at least about 50pounds per ton of the total quality of feed fed to the animal.
 2. Themethod of claim 1 wherein the mixture further includes a condenseddistiller's soluble fraction.
 3. The method of claim 1 wherein thenon-ruminant is swine.
 4. The method of claim 1 wherein the non-ruminantis poultry.
 5. The method of claim 1 wherein the supplement furthercomprises whey.
 6. The method of claim 1 wherein the supplement furthercomprises ethyl acetate.
 7. The method of claim 1 wherein the supplementfurther comprises soybean oil.
 8. The method of claim 1 wherein thesupplement is in a liquid form.
 9. The method of claim 1 wherein thesupplement is blended into the non ruminant's total mixed ration. 10.The method of claim 1 wherein the supplement is added to a lick tank.11. The method of claim 1 wherein the supplement is mixed with groundfeed.